We are going to have to move through material pretty quickly in the next several weeks. In order to expedite matters, I would appreciate it if you would skim the first two books (not chapters) of Eusebius of Caesarea's History of the Church for Tuesday's class (April 11). Read more carefully the first two pages and a few passages that particularly get your attention. We are going to be looking at Eusebius' strengths and weaknesses as a historian.
In my view, a good history should be interesting. Do Books I and II meet this standard? What do you find interesting in these books? Does Eusebius ever lose your attention? If so, why?
Please bring the Eusebius book to class with you for the next several sessions.
In all honesty, I would have to say they do meet the standard of making history, history, but do not meet the standard of making it interesting in my eyes. To me, there wasn't really a good hook in these books that really drew me in. The thing I found interesting in book one was the part at the beginning where he talked about Christ and how his character is twofold. This interested me because I have never seen this theory before. It's an interesting take on Christ's character. The thing that was most interesting to me in book 2 was the picture of the temple of Jerusalem where James was killed. This to me is interesting because I know in my head that there is no way that the picture is of the real temple, but the look of the picture makes it look like the editors went back in time and took that picture.
ReplyDeleteThe books lose my attention when the author goes on about the minor, little details that are kind of not important to the main point being talked about in the book.
Im probably not as well versed in History Books as others. But i did find the first 2 books interesting. But i like how he starts with talking about the Divine Logos. Which also could mean Reason. The point of Book 1 is talking about Jesus and what he meant to him. I also found Book1 Chapter 7 pretty interesting when he was talking about the Disagreements of the Genealogy of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteIn Book 2 I like how he was talking about how the Book of Mark was first preached. Also i kind of see this a companion to parts of Acts. I found the talk about the fall of the temple very detailed and interesting.
-Austin Dreyer.
DeleteI think book 1 and 2 do meet this standard. He covers a lot of information that I found interesting. The thing I found most interesting in book 1 is that in Josephus account God punished Herod with a deadly illness for the crimes he committed. The thing I found the most interesting in book 2 is that Nero's persecution where he also went after his close family members like his mother, brothers, and wife. He never really loses my attention because there is too much information that I found interesting that I didn't know about before.- Eathen Erck
ReplyDeleteThese first two books of Eusebius were fascinating and quickly caught my attention. So I would say they are a phenomenal addition to the early church period of history. I always kept my attention while reading the book. However, I did have to read through the books quite slowly. The slow reading was because these pages were jam-packed with rich and profound information. Having read many other church fathers' writings, Eusebius is quite deep and informative, even compared to them!
ReplyDeleteI was fascinated when Eusebius went into breaking down the name of Jesus Christ. The reason is that I was listening to a podcast called the bible project. In their podcast, they just had a four-part mini-series on this very topic. They compiled this information, and I was shocked at how closely some details they discussed lined up with Eusebius' writings. Even a thousand-plus years away in a way that can show some of the deep scholarly work that Eusebius put into his writings. I am incredibly excited to continue to work through this book!
Tanner Simon
There are many strengths and weaknesses of Eusebius but many strengths, I feel outweighs his weaknesses. One weakness could be the task in which he's the first to undertake the task of tracing the rise of Christianity during its crucial first three centuries from Christ to Constantine. He has a select archive of information to choose from, speaks of what he knows, and what has gathered from prolific authors writing books. Some things also are not clear because there’s missing proof. However, Eusebius shows many proofs to prophecies in the bible that lead to the spread of Christianity. Like Paul being the first Gentile to receive divine word from Philip by revelation and the first to return to his land to preach the Gospel. Through Paul the prophecy had been fulfilled of psalms 68:31. Again Where divine justice brings swift retribution to the king for his plots against the apostles in Acts 12:19-23.
ReplyDeleteI found both of these books to be lacking in interest a little. I think it is very easy to make history books boring, but it can be rather difficult to make them fun to read. Book I was more interesting to me than Book II, but both were a little difficult to get through. In Book I, the descriptions of Herod's death caught my attention as well as the letters sent between Jesus and King Abgar (though I do not know if that was entirely true). However, reading about the genealogies and their comparisons absolutely bored me. What caught my interest in Book II was the section about James the Just and his martyrdom. I think it's interesting that he was and is buried next to the temple he was stoned at.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Bland
I think that the idea of the book(s) are interesting and meet the standards of history. I was really intrigued by the overall story he was telling but I found my attention wandering and wanting to just be done when it came to the smaller details that I personally didn’t find as important or interesting. I also did find it a little difficult to just sit down and read as there was just so much going on in certain parts making it dense and difficult to read. Probably my favorite part was when Eusebius took Jesus’ name and broke it down.
ReplyDeleteI really quite like Eusebius' first two books. He strikes that good middle ground of adding detail but also making it a STORY. Some people when they write books DRONE on and on. Eusebius doesn't do that. He covers Moses' life pretty rapidly despite it being a major part of the Bible. On the other hand, he has THOUSANDS of years to talk about. Sometimes he never really loses my attention in his book.
ReplyDeleteWalker Larson
The part that I found most interesting in the first book was where Eusebius is discussing the different genealogies of Christ. He discusses how families were either according to nature or law. Going into the gospels of Matthew and Luke, Eusebius describes how these two men traced Jesus’ genealogy differently after David. I thought this was interesting to just see how families were such a difficult thing to keep track of. It was difficult to stay focused on Eusebius’ writing however. At times it was just too confusing to follow all of the different quoting from other writers that he included.
ReplyDelete